AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Naming Policy

[Timberpoes]

Bottom post of the previous page:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33203

I suspect the game they're trying to name their borg persona after is older than they are.

What other niche old indie games from eras past have people enjoyed?

[Edit] See also: The younger, hotter cousin of the above game which is superior in every way.

[Thaumic]

I think the admission that the banning admin in question went into the ticket already intending to place a ban speaks for itself

I think you misunderstood, had the ticket just been a "hey change your name" "oh okay" that would have been the end of it. When I say "I would have gone for a day ban" I meant assuming the ticket was exactly the same, only in the end they didn't give me a shitposty response.

I’m at work so I gotta make this quick
First of all sorry about that, I got kinda angry because to me it looked like you just ignored everything I said and instead made a reply that was just a continuation of your last one.
Second is that I’m not trying to be your enemy, I just legitimately don’t like this ruling.
Third is that I agree if someone is being evasive and difficult then admins don’t have to keep indulging him. HOWEVER take a moment to consider that this rule is a bit special in that it’s subjective and up to whatever admin happens to come across your masterpiece of a name. Because of that it is entirely reasonable to probe the admin that contacted you what variation of your name would be fine. Since the nature of this rule is so finicky I believe you should exercise much greater patience and tolerance when invoking it

[Epicgamer545]

appeal resolved!!

[Tearling]

You know why it's a perma appearance ban? Because I don't trust people who give me shit posting responses in an ahelp ticket to behave when I'm not looking.

It feels really bad as a player when an admin assumes you're being malicious or shitposting when you're just having a momentary bout of ignorance.
Don't attribute to shitpost what you can easier attribute to being a new player. Which he is. He has less than 100 hours total.

[Shellton(Mario)]

Perma appearance ban seems overkill pretty much anyway you look at it inless he had notes/bans before this happened. (Which he didnt)

[Misdoubtful]

It’s just not perma worthy

If someone says "yeah I'm not going to follow this rule" the response is to place the least-restrictive appropriate perma until they come to the forums and agree to follow the rules.

You see it happen with appearance bans and Rule 11 stuff.

It's not a perma as in "you will never have this removed", that's a black list. All you have to say is "Oh yeah, I'll follow that rule now, sorry about earlier."

[Hoxha]

shit cyborg name but i think drag could have shown just a bit more patience in the ticket before jumping to conclude that they're a bad faith shitter

[Kendrickorium]

>was uncooperative in tickets

why are admins like this

[Epicgamer545]

>was uncooperative in tickets

uh oh

Joke aside, we deal with bad people so much that we immediately put this in their notes when they do anything not matching the admin’s expectations. When do we chill on this for a little bit?

[NoxVS]

shit cyborg name but i think drag could have shown just a bit more patience in the ticket before jumping to conclude that they're a bad faith shitter

Have you seen the ticket history at all? Drag was literally there for 10 minutes of bad faith names. You have to be completely delusional to think that going from "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" to "AAAAA" to "AAAA4" to "ÄĂĄÆ4" is anywhere close to even the most generous definition of good faith. You are not entitled to forcing an admin to sit there and hold your hand as you slowly inch towards the line of what is reasonable.

If you tell an admin you won't follow the rules then they are perfectly justified in permabanning you from whatever you are doing until you say you will follow the rules, rather than have the admin babysit you and wait for you to inevitably break the rules you just said you won't follow. And if you do get hit with one of those permas, they are the easiest thing in the world to lift. You show up, say you won't break the rules, and that's it. It's a bar set so incredibly low that it is genuinely a wonder that some people still find a way to trip over it. If you somehow have trouble meeting that bar, here's a handy template you can customize and slot into your ban appeal for a guaranteed unban.

► Show Spoiler

Your side of the story: I did (INSERT BAN REASON HERE)
Why you think you should be unbanned: I won't do (INSERT BAN REASON HERE)
Anything else we should know: No

If you are having issues with this template, feel free to PM me on the forums or discord. I am willing to customize it for you to fit your appeal.

[Timberpoes]

Any form of "uncooperative/not understanding/etc in ahelps" is admin code for "I bet they'll do this again".

It could be rules lawyering, it could be "fine just ban me then", it could be not taking the ahelp seriously, it could be being a pain in the ass and making the investigation an exercise in CBT.

The implication is that for any myriad of reasons, the person the admin dealt with didn't say any of the spiritual children of the classic "Yup, sorry, my bad, won't do it again" reply.

A little snippet from our internal guide to rule enforcement states:

Punish malice, a lack of empathy, and constant reckless incompetency. A player carrying out actions with a malicious intent to ruin the round for someone else should be taken out. Be careful when deciding that someone was malicious in their actions. Other players might not deliberately act with the intent to grief or be a dick but they display a lack of any ability to empathize or consider the fun of other people. Take these people out too. Lastly, you might constantly find some people who keep on doing things like releasing the singulo setting the supermatter off or being a really horrible head of staff. Sometimes constant advice fixes a person, sometimes they just need to be kept away from certain roles.

These kinds of additions to notes tends to indicate that a player simply doesn't care whether they are or are not breaking the rules and, if they break the rules again, they could well be malicious, lacking empathy or just recklessly incompetent.

It's not a practice I defend, but it's an explanation of what tends to be an admin's thought process when they add snippets to notes about a player being uncooperative.

[Tearling]

Punish malice, a lack of empathy, and constant reckless incompetency. A player carrying out actions with a malicious intent to ruin the round for someone else should be taken out. Be careful when deciding that someone was malicious in their actions. Other players might not deliberately act with the intent to grief or be a dick but they display a lack of any ability to empathize or consider the fun of other people. Take these people out too. Lastly, you might constantly find some people who keep on doing things like releasing the singulo setting the supermatter off or being a really horrible head of staff. Sometimes constant advice fixes a person, sometimes they just need to be kept away from certain roles.

Other players might not deliberately act with the intent to grief or be a dick but they display a lack of any ability to empathize or consider the fun of other people.

Not related to most of your post, not agreeing/disagreeing with your point, but looking at this...
Displaying a lack of empathy is not equivalent to having a lack of empathy. I get bad vibes seeing aggressive admin training material like this.
Going at any player with the intention of 'taking them out' when they haven't broken any rules, just because they show a lack of empathy is, ironically, a sign of a lack of empathy. Is this a bygone guide from the Nervere era?

Edit: Unless of course this is assuming this is just for people who've already broken the rules. Still a bit off-putting, but it would make a lot more sense thinking about it.

[Hoxha]

You have to be completely delusional to think that going from "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" to "AAAAA" to "AAAA4" to "ÄĂĄÆ4" is anywhere close to even the most generous definition of good faith.

don't get me wrong those are all terrible names, but my point is that they came from a misunderstanding of what constitutes a good name rather than a deliberate attempt at wasting drag's time

If you tell an admin you won't follow the rules then they are perfectly justified in permabanning you from whatever you are doing until you say you will follow the rules, rather than have the admin babysit you and wait for you to inevitably break the rules you just said you won't follow.

i didn't interpret the responses in the ticket as "i'm not going to listen to what you say" so much as the appellant just genuinely not understanding why their names sucked and throwing shit at the wall until something sticks. i agree that admins probably shouldn't be babysitting players for up to 10 minutes slowly teaching them what is and isn't acceptable (i'm not an admin so i don't know how long tickets should last but i'll take your word that 10 minutes is too much). really what i'm trying to say is that drag probably should have been just a bit more lenient before deciding he was a shitter deliberately wasting his time. or maybe i'm giving the appellant too much benefit of the doubt who knows

[datorangebottle]

On one hand, I don't like "you annoyed an admin so go to the forums" as a ban reason. On the other hand,



Catacomb Kids is an old(enough), cheap, niche indie game that is still actively being developed and almost nobody knows about. Probably because it's been in early access hell for a while being developed by one dude. It's like if Spelunky 2 went closer to its roots instead of further from them.

[NoxVS]

You have to be completely delusional to think that going from "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" to "AAAAA" to "AAAA4" to "ÄĂĄÆ4" is anywhere close to even the most generous definition of good faith.

don't get me wrong those are all terrible names, but my point is that they came from a misunderstanding of what constitutes a good name rather than a deliberate attempt at wasting drag's time

If you tell an admin you won't follow the rules then they are perfectly justified in permabanning you from whatever you are doing until you say you will follow the rules, rather than have the admin babysit you and wait for you to inevitably break the rules you just said you won't follow.

i didn't interpret the responses in the ticket as "i'm not going to listen to what you say" so much as the appellant just genuinely not understanding why their names sucked and throwing shit at the wall until something sticks. i agree that admins probably shouldn't be babysitting players for up to 10 minutes slowly teaching them what is and isn't acceptable (i'm not an admin so i don't know how long tickets should last but i'll take your word that 10 minutes is too much). really what i'm trying to say is that drag probably should have been just a bit more lenient before deciding he was a shitter deliberately wasting his time. or maybe i'm giving the appellant too much benefit of the doubt who knows

Lenient how? You have a player who has spent 10 minutes slowly approaching the line. Even if they weren't deliberately wasting time, having to slowly nudge them closer to the point of being reasonable is something better done on the forums.

This isn't an actual perma ban. This is a "come to the forums and say you won't break the rules and you can play again" ban. This perma ban is not intended to stand, it's intended to be removed at the first sign of understanding. And it's even appearance, not a game ban. You can't really get more lenient than this without taking no action or having an appearance ban for a day or so.

[Drag]

Should I have been a little bit more patient? Yes. I know that I can be pretty short and terse with my wording because I'm a very anti bullshit straight to the point person. (Not an excuse, just a reason why)

Even if the player is a low playtime account I expect all players (because we are an 18 plus server, so my assumption going into every ticket is that they're an adult) to understand and know what a "word" and "name" means. Reading the ticket start to finish these topics that an adult should be able to comprehend was met to what I saw as a shitpost trying to deflect the seriousness of the ticket. You don't need to say "I'm not going to do that" to give me the impression you're not going to listen. Your behavior is a factor that can make me think that.

It really didn't help that the player didn't convey any form of confusion, even if you're new as an adult I expect you to communicate. As Nox said inching towards the ticket isn't the place, ahelp tickets are for immediate discussion and for immediate action, the forums are for long discussions. When you hit me with text that is constantly reducing in quality to the point it wouldn't even get past the filters what else am I supposed to think? That's not being confused that's a lack of cooperation.

[Bawhoppennn]

Inappropriate response by Drag, even if it's a 9/10 chance that the person was bad faith

My biggest issue is giving the 1-hr ban just to shut down the conversation. They were in 0% ways uncooperative, and were not acting unreasonable either (spamming or shittalking, etc)... basically not justified at all in this case. Given time perhaps it could've DEVELOPED to that point, but this jumped the gun by a large margin

[Capsandi]

Please no empty posting please thanks. Peanuts are supposed to be a place for serious discussion concerning important issues which ha
m

So, yea don't empty post thanks.

[MooCow12]

I`m sure to him, as a new player, cyborg name restrictions seemed like an arbitrary construct at the moment, and he was just trying to find where that line was.

[cybersaber101]

Timber you have created a thread full of strife and contrivance! There's a mix of pointless bickering and people awkwardly discussing random games like they're covering their ears.

[Timberpoes]

You're most welcome.

I am one of the most chaotic admins for a reason.

[Archie700]

You're most welcome.

I am one of the most chaotic admins for a reason.

Timber is a good admin and is always supportive of the playerbase. (help I'm being hunted by ocelots help)

[Agux909]

Timber you have created a thread full of strife and contrivance! There's a mix of pointless bickering and people awkwardly discussing random games like they're covering their ears.

I wasn't covering my ears they finally mentioned a game I did actually play

[kayozz]

I am one of the most chaotic admins for a reason.

[Timberpoes]

I am one of the most chaotic admins for a reason.

Chaotic good

Archetype: Rebel

A chaotic good character does what is necessary to bring about change for the better, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well. Chaotic good characters usually intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganized and often out of sync with the rest of society. Examples of this alignment include copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns.

I guess I'm a unicorn now.

[kayozz]

I am one of the most chaotic admins for a reason.

Chaotic good

Archetype: Rebel

A chaotic good character does what is necessary to bring about change for the better, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well. Chaotic good characters usually intend to do the right thing, but their methods are generally disorganized and often out of sync with the rest of society. Examples of this alignment include copper dragons, many elves, and unicorns.

I guess I'm a unicorn now.

Rightly so.

[ekaterina]

I don't like "you annoyed an admin so go to the forums" as a ban reason.

Absolutely. This is some paradise-tier garbagemin behaviour, especially automatically assuming bad faith. It's shocking to see how many admins are defending it.

We're ADULTS, if he didn't understand what I was talking about why isn't he trying to communicate that with me? He isn't communicating such even in the appeal.

Not everyone speaks English fluently. Being an adult does not magically endow you with fluency.

I understand this issue has already been resolved but it should not have played out the way it did. He complied with every broad restriction you imposed and you just decided he was "unCoOPeRAtiVe" because you didn't like him. If you can't speak clearly enough, that's on you, not on him for not reading your mind.

[Agux909]

I don't know about any of you, but I can faintly detect the intent of a small-sized tomfoolery, one of those we usually like to do, on that player's side of the ticket.

[Bawhoppennn]

You know, ahelps aren't like courts of law where you need beyond a reasonable doubt to convict something. If an admin thinks someone is 51% likely to be be guilty, I think that's fair to punish them.

The issue with these bans lately is that the person is not 90% likely to be guilty, not 51%, not 25%... but like 5% likely. Particular admins are literally assuming the worst with basically no evidence but a hunch. And then after being called out, basically refuse to admit fault. It's a 2d spess game. You can say you were wrong, nobody will think you are a lesser person. I think that's what's ridiculous...